Is this Theft or Fraud? Drakes; ****WON****

[KAB]

Excuse my ignorance! but can't you get in touch with the bank and claim fraudulent activity on your account? It happened to me with the Halifax and they refunded the money back into my account.

[gizmo111]

Hate to throw a spanner in the works guys but I get the feeling this may not be illegal, unethical yes

 

Do you remember last year there was all the outcry about the Inland Revenue claiming overpayments for working tax credits back, by just dipping in to people's bank accounts and just taking the full amount out without any warning

 

Obviously people were upset because it caused them hardship suddenly having their accounts emptied etc

 

Have to say though, there was never any suggestion this practice was illegal as it was the Inland Revenue's money, it was just the way they went about it

 

But wasn't this different in as much as they were told when the money would be recovered and it was never theirs in the first place? Not saying it was right but still different. Banks do this as well and call it right of offset.

This with the baliff is the same as going to Tesco and spending £10 and tesco being allowed to keep taking money. The police are saying because it is a baliff they can't do anything - what is the basis for this. AFAIK even the official receiver dosn't take your money from account without warning.

[Rich44]

You cant compare the Inland Rev with this shower of turds

[falcon185]

Hi,

we were apparently overpaid in Child tax credit, at no time did they remove any funds from our account, all they did was advise us that it would be deducted from our next years entitlement, no-one has the right to just dip into anyones account without a court order. ( Correct me if I'm wrong )

[lookinforinfo]

I hope you are not wrong Falcon! Just laid out £50 a few days ago and the Court

has said they are in the process of delivering the Summons.

 

If the bailiffs were within their rights to remove the money from my account, they

would have said so in their response to my letter, rather than claim that I had agreed to it. IN any event, if it was lawful just to remove the money from one's account, the Court would do it themselves rather than use bailiffs.

[Guest ian cognito]

good luck with this, we await the outcome with baited breath!

 

i can't believe the attitude of the police and bank on this - not been so mad since a bailiff came into me house and said there was nothing worth taking!!!

 

I suppose the lesson is to pay bailiffs by cheque only, that way they can't do this can they? sorry - know it's a bit late for you.

[GSMGuy]

Rich - The Inland Rev are the biggest shower of theives going, but at least they only debit the amounts I authorise from my account... It;s plain to see that these transactions are wholly illegal, just request a dispute form from your bank and recalim them - don't mention bailiffs or anything, just say you did not give your authorisation for the funds to be taken, that is enough for the banks - well mine anyway..

 

Mike

[lookinforinfo]

The reason I gave them my debit card to pay the £50 was that in their warrant

notice they said that cheques were unacceptable. In any event, I knew I had several payments going through the following week and a cheque might not clear if it arrived in my account on the wrong day.

 

Now I am waiting to see how Drakes react to my summons. I realoise that it is my word against their slimeball rep and am hoping that he will be present if Drakes

decide to defend. I Don't know if he has to be there, or if I can insist on his presence, and if I can demand their phone records to be produced. Any help from you guys would be appreciated.

[lookinforinfo]

I noticed that on the MCOL that an acknowledgement of service has been recorded

by Drakes.

No doubt I will get the official notification from the Court tomorrow or Monday.

Will keep you posted.

[traceyrmj]

wow what a mess!

 

firstly can i have your bank details... no well you gave them to me last week so ill just use them again.... er NO! that si not the way it works.

secondly, they claim you have authoriosed the payment, ask them for a recording of the call, they allegedly have to keep them, imagine your surprise when they are not forthcoming as they dont have a record of a call that didnt happen!

thirdly if you get no joy with the papers take the name and badge number of the police man who serves ( or fails to serve ) you and go to the papers. the mail will be interested im sure

lastly, if you owe the cash you will eventually have to pay it but i recall reading on here that a DCA cannot enforce a debt that is under dispute thru the courts. sure someone will clarify but at the very least the bank should issue you with a new card number ( tell them you lost it if you have to ) that way they cant use the details again.

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Tracey. I am thinking of doing an S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) for drakes phones but will

wait till I see what their acknowledgement says.

 

They cannot take any more money since they already have taken what I owed. But I have worked out why took it when they did. And it helps my case no end.

[petej2811]

I saw this and frankly I'm a little disgusted.

 

I was a police officer myself until Dec. last year and in my daily duties I would investigate financial crimes often. 'Credit card fraud' in particular.

 

In this case the bailiffs, Drakes, are guilty (based on what I've read) of one of two offences.

 

Either obtaining a money transfer by deception or alternatively obtaining money by deception.

 

They took your money, so they appropriated it (a point to prove under the theft act). This can be proven as you will have statements of the funds leaving your account and the bank can prove that the finds went to Drakes.

 

The next point to prove is that it was a dishonest act. Simply put if you did not give your premission and they did it then it is wrong and an act of dishonesty.

 

The deception is simple. Had the bailiffs told you that they were going to take all the debt from your card would you have allowed it? The answer, simply, is no. As such they take a smaller ammount, obtain your details and run the card again to obtain payment thereby completing the element of deception.

 

Your local police are a disgrace. A sad fact. This is an easy case to prove, the trail of evidence is simple. The sad fact is that may uniformed PCs can't be bothered because it's not the usual bread and butter (experience talking) and so they cuff it.

 

The police are duty bound to take action on your behalf if you make a complaint that an offence has taken place. The crime counting rules require they take a report and investigate the initial allegation.

 

I found, on a practical level, that justifying not investigating something was a lot more difficult than actually getting on with it.

 

Your local police have been negligent in their duties and you are well within your rights to complain to the IPCC (search for that in google). If not for your own sake then for the next person's sake. The officer who dealt with you is clearly lacking in procedural and legal knowledge or just plain lazy. Either way not a good thing to allow to continue.

 

You are the victim of a crime. You have the right to have your complaint dealt with.

 

You have also been the victim of a civil wrong and so you are also entitled to progress matters through this route.

 

I applaud your determination but must stress that I personally believe you owe it to yourself, to the next person who deals with your local police and to the next person who deals with Drakes to make a criminal complaint that ensures the police do their duty and that the bailiffs don't take the p*ss.

 

Regards,

 

Pete J

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks for that Pete.

I have been to the Police twice now with no result. Call me cynical, but they

may have decided that the less crimes they accept, the less they have to solve

and they can also claim that crime is coming down. The last time I went they said it

was a civil matter and that I should consult Citizens Advice. Because the CAB in

Harrow has short hours and only covers about 3 days in the week, I decided to

go ahead and sue the **** instead.

 

In the nick, I suggested that what Drakes had done was an offence under the

1996 theft act amendment. ie obtaining a money transfer by deception. Which you

seem to agree with? So it is theft rather than fraud or any thing else? The reason I

ask is because in my Court claim I accused them of theft, and I would hate to

lose on a technicality at the start of the case, if it was some thing other than theft.

 

If it does come under the 1996 act, then the maximum penalty is 10 years, plus

he will have to perjure himself a few times I guess, which should also carry a

prison sentence in view of the fact that he was carrying out the instructions of

a Court? So I don't think my actions will allow him to take the p**s.

[traceyrmj]

good luck mate and will watch this one they have no right to do that!

[lookinforinfo]

Thanks Tracey.

After getting no joy from my bank, the Police or the Court where the warrant was

ssued, I was beginning to doubt which of us was in the wrong.

 

However I am looking forward to seeing them in Court. I don't have to lie. That lowlife **** Rosenfeld not only has to lie, he has to remember what was said on

the day and how his story differs from that without tripping up. Oh yes, and the

knowledge that he could be facing a jail sentence. No pressure then.

[Ellie968]

Rambo I totally agree - they take the **** all the time and seemingly with impunity - it makes me mad! Hadyn I would love to know what you sued Ross and Roberts for and what the outcome was. Maybe more of us should try it.

[Its WAR]

The council had a court order to collect a few months council tax. But we agreed to pay them direct each month. The bailiff still wanted fees for a couple visits which they inflated. We didnt pay them. 6 months later, we had no debt with the council. Then the bailiff called looking for his fees only and adding more fees. We issued a summons for a judgmental review on whether we owed the fees (inflated remember). Ross & Roberts sent the usual defence letters etc but a cheque arrived the day before the hearing. What was especially satisfying was they shouted loud to declare we owed them and the letters were intimidating. Then they folded, their bluff was called. I photocopied the cheque and made a Christmas card out of it and sent it to them. I still smile when I think of it.

[lookinforinfo]

Spoke to the Court today as I had heard nothing about Drakes acknowledgement of service [it can mean more than just having received the summons. But in this case,

that is all it was. So they have a futher 28 days to file a defence or cough up.

 

In view of the recent tv program on bailiffs, they may decide to cut their losses and

not go to Court. MUst say I am disappointed at the lack of commrent on this forum

and in the press about the program. Unlike the very poor reporting into bungs in

football, the coverage on bailiffs was excellent so the reaction,or the lack of reaction, is disturbing.

[Guest ian cognito]

I get the feeling no-one was surprised by the programme, I doubt very much if they'll go to court, whether the programme had been shown or not, they just hide behind the fact that most people are frighgtened to death by the thought of a bailiff knocking on the door, turfing hteir furniture out on to the street etc. Its about time we started standing up to them. I spoke to Wescot on Monday about my so-called debt with Vodafone, they were cocky as hell until I mentioned traading standards then he just mumbled something about contacting vodafone and put the phone down!

[elsinore]

This should warm the cockles of your heart, lookinforinfo:-

 

Originally Posted by Amanda Taylor

I watched tis last nite & found it very eye opening as i work for the loca MBC & we all recieved an email this morning to advise that the contract which had been taken out with Drakes for recovery of council tax & parking fines had been cancelled following the bbc programme

 

 

Elsinore:D

[lookinforinfo]

Mixed reactions really. On the one hand, it would be nice to get my money back from them. On the other, there is a chance if they turn up in Court that not only

will I get my money back, but also that that theiving **** Rosenfeld could be

imprisoned.

[lookinforinfo]

Just got the notice from the Court today that they will be defending the case.

Interesting to see if they will sign the statement of truth-and who will sign it.

[Guest ian cognito]

After watching them tell all those bare faced lies this week, can't say anything would surprise me, their arrogance is unbelievable and they deserve everything they get - keep us posted.

[joebloggs]

I woudl wing off a SAR as per the templates section to Blakes, asking for a list of all payments, notes and transcripts of all telephone calls made.

This will have the effect of them knowing you mean buisness and are nto going to let this matter drop.

When they fail to produce the goods wing out the non compliance letters again they will realise they are very dodgy ground.

In light of the BBC undercover programme showing how they behave you will have little trouble balancing the probablities in your favour.

Let the hunters becoem the hunted and good luck.

[oscar21]

How can it possibly be right that bailiffs can take all the money out of your bank account because its "theirs", but there are laws saying that a foot in the door isn't peaceable entry. Laws were set up for the publics protection not for the lazy police to dfo nothing all day. If the police just got paid for what they do then we could all afford the council tax and there would be no need to trouble them for things like this!